Re: [CEDET-devel] semantic-lex impending upgrade

[David P. <Dav...@wa...>]

[...]
>>As you are working on semantic-lex, I think it would be better to
>>rename `semantic-lex-token' to `semantic-lex-push-token' as that
>>function actually push a new token in the lexical stream.  And to
>>create a true `semantic-lex-token' to create new lexical tokens.
>>Something like that:
> 
>   [ ... ]
> 
>>Thus we will have a true abstraction layer for lexical tokens, like
>>we have one for semantic tokens.
> 
> 
> That seems like a good idea.  Is there a push-token for semantic as
> well=3F  I am unaware of one.  It would be nice to have consistency.

No there isn't one for semantic.  Maybe it is not really necessary
here=3F

Semantic streams (trees) are built in a transparent way (for the
programmer) from values produced by grammar semantic actions.  So
there is no need for a push-token here.  I am missing something=3F

On the contrary, lexical tokens can be explicitly put (by the
programmer) in the lexical stream in his own made single lexical
analyzers.  To do that, an API call would be nice ;-)

>>P.S.: I checked the fixes in for semantic-el.el and semanticdb-el.el.
>>Is there any reason for semantic-el.el to be in the bovine
>>sub-directory=3F  Elisp parser is not the "bovinator", isn't it=3F
> 
> 
> The elisp parser is also a bovine parser, but without a .bnf file.
> The language was hand coded in table format.  Instead of recursing
> into lists once found, it uses the Emacs Lisp reader instead, so it
> is a bit of a hybrid.
[...]

Thanks for your nice explanation!  Things are clear now ;-)

David